Salman Khan's bail justified or unusual? Lawyers divided over Bombay HC decision

New Delhi: It took 13 years for a conclusion in the hit-and-run case involving Salman Khan, but Friday’s decision of the Bombay High Court, granting bail to the actor after he was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail by the sessions court leaves the case open again. The High Court had granted the actor interim bail for two days on Wednesday; after the lapse of the period, his appeal for suspension of the sentence was once again heard and he was granted permanent bail till next order. How does the legal fraternity view the latest development? Explaining the grounds of the bail, advocate KC Mittal, senior lawyer of the Delhi High Court, “In a criminal appeal, courts look into the conduct of the accused, whether there is any violation of natural justice and also broadly on the facts of the case to reach the conclusion that the case is fit for grant of bail. Courts always keep in mind that the accused should be kept in custody or granted bail on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the order has been passed considering all these aspects.” [caption id=“attachment_2235192” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Salman with father Salim Khan and brother Arbaaaz at his residence after returning from the Sessions court in Mumbai. PTI[/caption] Raising questions on charging the actor under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), the veteran lawyer says even if alcohol was found in the blood sample of the accused, it does not amount to culpable homicide. “Even the honourable judge has made the same observation as I came to know from initial reports. The observation has merits,” he said. The court has observed that slapping Section 304 Part II of the IPC needs further consideration. Similarly, Mittal added, another fact that has emerged is “non-examination of Kamal Khan, a singer, who was stated to be in the car at the time of the incident”. The court has also said that “…a number of arguable points have been raised, which need consideration”. Salman’s counsel Amit Desai told the court that despite interrogation by the investigating officer, the statement of Ashok Singh, the driver of the actor, was not recorded. The defence lawyer also brought to the notice of the court that the trial court did not accept the statements of Salman’s body guard Ravindra Patil, the key witness of the case who is no more, despite the fact he went on record during an interview saying that there were four persons in the car when it ran into a bakery killing one and injuring three on the fateful night of 28 September, 2002. Mittal also wondered why the actor was not provided a copy of the judgement soon after the pronouncement of the trial court’s verdict on Wednesday. “I fail to understand why the copy of the judgement was not kept ready at the time of its pronouncement to afford proper opportunity for an appeal,” he said. Supreme Court advocate Rebecca Mammen John finds the bail to Salman unusual. “I know nothing about the Salman Khan case except that it was a hit-and-run case and that a poor citizen of this country died. I also know that Salman Khan was convicted and handed out a five-year sentence. When a person is sentenced to three years or below, the CrPc allows the trial court to suspend the sentence to enable the accused to file an appeal in the higher court. “But where a five-year sentence is handed out, that rule does not apply and the accused is taken into custody forthwith .The High Court’s order on Wednesday allowing him to go home the same day and it’s order today suspending his sentence pending final disposal of his appeal, without his having served any time, is very unusual. Processes must be respected and the law must apply equally to everyone,” she said. Terming the High Court’s decision “justified and as per law, Justice Kalimullah Khan, retired judge of Allahabad High Court, said, “Section 389 of CrPc confers the power on the appellate court to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellant and to release the appellant on bail. It provides that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the appellate court may, for reasons to be recorded by it him writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appeal against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond.” He further says since the offences under which accused Salman Khan was prosecuted are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, the appellate court (the Bombay High Court in this case) “need not give opportunity to the public prosecutor to petition in writing against such release”. “The Bombay High Court is fully justified in passing such orders,” said Justice Khan. Offering the same arguments in support of the Bombay High Court order, senior Advocate Feroz Khan Ghazi said there was no irregularity in the HC order. “Being the appellate court in this case, the High Court is empowered enough to grant him or her bail.” Had the sentence been for less than or up to three years, the same trial court would have released him on a bail bond pending appeal in higher court, he added.